Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMH

AB Player Suggestions

Recommended Posts

I want to open this forum for players to suggest changes to the upcoming reset and ways we can improve upon the current game mechanics. Anderson and his AB left this game in good shape but I want to give players the opportunity to speak their minds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back this far one of the most important things for players to do will be to keep their actions in the historical context of the time. 

 

Resets at that start in the past usually avoid repeating news from real life too much, but I think it would be helpful to keep a constant stream of real life news from the admins (in addition to new scenarios of course) in order to help keep context

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You had some congress members calling for universal healthcare and other "socialist" legislation back then, the only thing that was rarely ever even mentioned was legalization of gay marriage etc so I think most players have common sense to represent the historical context..

 

But I would suggest scrapping my player media system for this round, it's alot of work to grade it every week or every other week but I guess that's up to the player media mod. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1986, you have four broadcast news sources (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN) and a few major newspapers. Internet was mainly college students and researchers; most attention was on dial-up Bulletin Board Systems, with AOL keywords Compuserve being the big national player at $5/hour (in other words, not so big).

 

 

 

Essentially, there is no "player media".

 

The Drudge Report starts in 1995 as a subscription-based email.

 

Google is founded in 1998. The big search engine in 1986 is Yahoo, indexed by category manually, although there are a ton of competitors.

 

Players would have to get information out the old-fashioned way. Press releases, pre-taped and live interviews, letters to constituents, and speeches.

Edited by Lloth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we're playing the House (with no filibuster), incorporating the disparate factions of each party into the gameplay of the House will be critical to making it interesting. The 80s were also a more politically-diverse time – there were conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, and everything in between. When it comes to voting, I would recommend some influence system where players control a proportion of votes within their faction of their party. Requiring players to select a faction (moderate, establishment, radical - something like that) upon signing in would be essential for this. The idea is similar to IVS as we've used it in the past, except make it specifically faction-based.

 

The last time we played a House round, factions were not properly represented and the lower chamber just became a partisan rubber stamp for the Speaker (aka me). Not particularly exciting. For a House round to work, there has to be a certain amount of intra-party strife (like in the real House), not just monolithic voting blocs as we often have in Senate rounds.

 

From an electoral point of view, it would also be interesting to allow factions to grow their seats in addition to the seats of the wider party. This could potentially be done by having each faction submit their own campaign round, with the overall party score being an aggregate of each faction's round and the distribution of seats within the party total being based on the relative scores of each faction's campaign. Just a thought.

Edited by Ashcroft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and no Netscape until 1994. What web there is in 1986 is mostly text.

 

There are online conversations through Internet Relay Chat, but that was mostly college students and group chats. (Is the UNC Chapel Hill IRC server still there? In its time, the log-in screen identified it as "the graveyard of high GPAs")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should note party leadership has a lot more control of the House and elections in 1987. However, House members tend to get...interesting.

 

Dennis Kucinich comes to mind. As does Bernie Sanders.

 

Also, caucuses aligned a bit differently. There is still a fair "Washington Consensus" in 1987. See "Man of the House" by Tip O'Neil about the Reagan era. The party leaders still met and worked out deals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The admins may wish to consider giving the Speaker his full authority in the round. After all, the man IS ""Air Force Three", and has only two people between him and the Oval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all know how to play the game...just saying..

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lloth said:

*shrug*. Okay, I will just go away again, then.

Good plan

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Ashcroft said:

Since we're playing the House (with no filibuster), incorporating the disparate factions of each party into the gameplay of the House will be critical to making it interesting. The 80s were also a more politically-diverse time – there were conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, and everything in between. When it comes to voting, I would recommend some influence system where players control a proportion of votes within their faction of their party. Requiring players to select a faction (moderate, establishment, radical - something like that) upon signing in would be essential for this. The idea is similar to IVS as we've used it in the past, except make it specifically faction-based.

 

The last time we played a House round, factions were not properly represented and the lower chamber just became a partisan rubber stamp for the Speaker (aka me). Not particularly exciting. For a House round to work, there has to be a certain amount of intra-party strife (like in the real House), not just monolithic voting blocs as we often have in Senate rounds.

 

From an electoral point of view, it would also be interesting to allow factions to grow their seats in addition to the seats of the wider party. This could potentially be done by having each faction submit their own campaign round, with the overall party score being an aggregate of each faction's round and the distribution of seats within the party total being based on the relative scores of each faction's campaign. Just a thought.


I agree with this fully, its so boring and tiring when players are pressured to obey party leadership on everything. I honestly believe  if party leadership threatens to punish a player for voting different or creating strife negative press or consequences should be allowed to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Avner said:


I agree with this fully, its so boring and tiring when players are pressured to obey party leadership on everything. I honestly believe  if party leadership threatens to punish a player for voting different or creating strife negative press or consequences should be allowed to happen.

I mean... coercion from party leadership is part and parcel of congressional politics. What I'm saying isn't that party leadership shouldn't be coercive, but rather that backbenchers should have a way to push back/demand concessions (by controlling votes in their faction).

 

As an addendum to my proposed system outline, I would suggest that party leadership (Speaker, floor leader, whip) should be able to influence votes of the whole party, not just their faction. This would add realism and also give players incentive to go for party leadership.

Edited by Ashcroft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you said, we don't disagree on that. I'm adding on to the point that players should be  rewarded for being independent at times instead of constantly having the threat of being kicked out of caucus for simply disagreeing and that consequences should apply. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Avner said:

I know what you said, we don't disagree on that. I'm adding on to the point that players should be  rewarded for being independent at times instead of constantly having the threat of being kicked out of caucus for simply disagreeing and that consequences should apply. 

I agree 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lloth said:

In 1986, you have four broadcast news sources (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN) and a few major newspapers. Internet was mainly college students and researchers; most attention was on dial-up Bulletin Board Systems, with AOL keywords Compuserve being the big national player at $5/hour (in other words, not so big).

 

 

 

Essentially, there is no "player media".

 

The Drudge Report starts in 1995 as a subscription-based email.

 

Google is founded in 1998. The big search engine in 1986 is Yahoo, indexed by category manually, although there are a ton of competitors.

 

Players would have to get information out the old-fashioned way. Press releases, pre-taped and live interviews, letters to constituents, and speeches.

 

Good thing player media can easily become player editorials and newspapers players can build up and stuff. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ashcroft said:

Since we're playing the House (with no filibuster), incorporating the disparate factions of each party into the gameplay of the House will be critical to making it interesting. The 80s were also a more politically-diverse time – there were conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, and everything in between. When it comes to voting, I would recommend some influence system where players control a proportion of votes within their faction of their party. Requiring players to select a faction (moderate, establishment, radical - something like that) upon signing in would be essential for this. The idea is similar to IVS as we've used it in the past, except make it specifically faction-based.

 

The last time we played a House round, factions were not properly represented and the lower chamber just became a partisan rubber stamp for the Speaker (aka me). Not particularly exciting. For a House round to work, there has to be a certain amount of intra-party strife (like in the real House), not just monolithic voting blocs as we often have in Senate rounds.

 

From an electoral point of view, it would also be interesting to allow factions to grow their seats in addition to the seats of the wider party. This could potentially be done by having each faction submit their own campaign round, with the overall party score being an aggregate of each faction's round and the distribution of seats within the party total being based on the relative scores of each faction's campaign. Just a thought.

 

My issue with this is that where do we draw the line between realism/just voting against something for the sake of it. In the past, when someone has had a degree of influence, they would sink bills and proposals on the basis of their own opinion on it and not necessarily due to opposition in any real sense of the word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Conrad said:

 

My issue with this is that where do we draw the line between realism/just voting against something for the sake of it. In the past, when someone has had a degree of influence, they would sink bills and proposals on the basis of their own opinion on it and not necessarily due to opposition in any real sense of the word. 

I mean... that's Congress for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ashcroft said:

I mean... that's Congress for you.

 

Well, I'd more so say if that's how the game mechanics go, then when do other members of the caucus/influence pool begin to fall away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Conrad said:

 

Well, I'd more so say if that's how the game mechanics go, then when do other members of the caucus/influence pool begin to fall away?

I'd say that if people are being ridiculous and overly partisan or just obstructionist, you should complain in the press and that should bring some consequences (perhaps involving losing influence).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I am saying is please don't be power bottoms to Conrad, I want an actual functioning Republican party this round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Storm said:

All I am saying is please don't be power bottoms to Conrad, I want an actual functioning Republican party this round.

 

We were functioning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Conrad said:

 

We were functioning!

functioning as power bottoms. Conrad is not the Republican party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Storm said:

functioning as power bottoms. Conrad is not the Republican party. 

 

giphy.gif

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Storm said:

functioning as power bottoms. Conrad is not the Republican party. 

 

 

Conrad, probably:

K335voEGJe0RvUV7S_8-lcEvaHDu3M1Lu1uDufQOR4AnYlWcdFRq-Vlzkab16kdlFKsmy_AcY7xlm4pB39aMqkQZsYRW-qFcx0GW110MKcMX7cmJS8YEoipGue6uCvlwWooorc72

Edited by Evan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.